Estlands försvarare? Vad händer med Nato om Donald Trump skulle bli president?
Här finns en utskrift av hela intervjun. Det återkommande temat är att alla verkar ha lurat USA, som är svagare än någonsin. På en fråga menar Trump att USA var som starkast i början på 1900-talet under president Theodore Roosevelt och möjligen direkt efter andra världskriget. Trump verkar se internationellt samarbete, allianser och handel som ett ständigt nollsummespel, där den enes vinst är den andres förlust. Därav de ständiga angreppen på andra länder och deras ledare, Angela Merkel sägs till exempel ha förstört Tyskland.
Det mest intressant för svenskar är ändå synen på Nato och närområdet. Trump menar att Nato är obsolet:
HABERMAN: Mr. Trump, I also want to go back to something you said earlier this week about NATO being ineffective. Do you think it’s the right institution for countering terror or do we need a new one and what might that new one look like?
TRUMP: Well I said something a few days ago and I was vastly criticized and I notice now this morning, people are saying Donald Trump is a genius. Because what I said – which of course is always nice to hear, David. But I was asked a question about NATO, and I’ve thought this but I have never expressed my opinion because until recently I’ve been an entrepreneur, I’ve been a very successful entrepreneur as opposed to a politician. And – I’d love to ask David, Maggie, if he’s a little surprised at how well I’ve done. You know, we’ve knocked out a lot. We’re down to the leftovers now, from the way I look at it. I call them the leftovers.
So anyway, but the question was asked of me a few days ago about NATO, and I said, well, I have two problems with NATO. No. 1, it’s obsolete. When NATO was formed many decades ago we were a different country. There was a different threat. Soviet Union was, the Soviet Union, not Russia, which was much bigger than Russia, as you know. And, it was certainly much more powerful than even today’s Russia, although again you go back into the weaponry. But, but – I said, I think NATO is obsolete, and I think that – because I don’t think – right now we don’t have somebody looking at terror, and we should be looking at terror. And you may want to add and subtract from NATO in terms of countries. But we have to be looking at terror, because terror today is the big threat. Terror from all different parts. You know in the old days you’d have uniforms and you’d go to war and you’d see who your enemy was, and today we have no idea who the enemy is.
I’ll tell you the problems I have with NATO. No. 1, we pay far too much. We are spending — you know, in fact, they’re even making it so the percentages are greater. NATO is unfair, economically, to us, to the United States. Because it really helps them more so than the United States, and we pay a disproportionate share. Now, I’m a person that — you notice I talk about economics quite a bit, in these military situations, because it is about economics, because we don’t have money anymore because we’ve been taking care of so many people in so many different forms that we don’t have money — and countries, and countries. So NATO is something that at the time was excellent. Today, it has to be changed. It has to be changed to include terror. It has to be changed from the standpoint of cost because the United States bears far too much of the cost of NATO. And one of the things that I hated seeing is Ukraine. Now I’m all for Ukraine, I have friends that live in Ukraine, but it didn’t seem to me, when the Ukrainian problem arose, you know, not so long ago, and we were, and Russia was getting very confrontational, it didn’t seem to me like anyone else cared other than us. And we are the least affected by what happens with Ukraine because we’re the farthest away. But even their neighbors didn’t seem to be talking about it. And, you know, you look at Germany, you look at other countries, and they didn’t seem to be very much involved. It was all about us and Russia. And I wondered, why is it that countries that are bordering the Ukraine and near the Ukraine – why is it that they’re not more involved? Why is it that they are not more involved? Why is it always the United States that gets right in the middle of things, with something that – you know, it affects us, but not nearly as much as it affects other countries. And then I say, and on top of everything else – and I think you understand that, David – because, if you look back, and if you study your reports and everybody else’s reports, how often do you see other countries saying ‘We must stop, we must stop.” They don’t do it! And, in fact, with the gas, you know, they wanted the oil, they wanted other things from Russia, and they were just keeping their mouths shut. And here the United States was going out and, you know, being fairly tough on the Ukraine. And I said to myself, isn’t that interesting? We’re fighting for the Ukraine, but nobody else is fighting for the Ukraine other than the Ukraine itself, of course, and I said, it doesn’t seem fair and it doesn’t seem logical.
SANGER: Well, President Obama said the other day in an interview he had that he thought that Russia, over time, was always going to have more influence over Ukraine than we would or anyone else would just given both the history and the geography.
TRUMP: And the location, right. The geography. I would agree with him.
SANGER: And so in the end do you agree that Russia is going to end up dominating the Ukraine?
TRUMP: Well, unless, unless there is, you know, somewhat of a resurgence frankly from people that are around it. Or they would ask us for help. But they don’t ask us for help. They’re not even asking us for help. They’re literally not even talking about it, and these are the countries that border the Ukraine.
HABERMAN: Mr. Trump –
TRUMP: There doesn’t seem to be any great anxiety over the Ukraine by everybody that should be affected and that’s bordering the Ukraine.
SANGER: There are several countries that have joined NATO in recent times – Estonia, among them, and so forth – that we are now bound by treaty to defend if Russia moved in. Would you observe that part of the treaty?
TRUMP: Yeah, I would. It’s a treaty, it’s there. I mean, we defend everybody. (Laughs.) We defend everybody. No matter who it is, we defend everybody. We’re defending the world. But we owe, soon, it’s soon to be $21 trillion. You know, it’s 19 now but it’s soon to be 21 trillion. But we defend everybody. When in doubt, come to the United States. We’ll defend you. In some cases free of charge. And in all cases for a substantially, you know, greater amount. We spend a substantially greater amount than what the people are paying. We, we have to think also in terms – we have to think about the world, but we also have – I mean look at what China’s doing in the South China Sea. I mean they are totally disregarding our country and yet we have made China a rich country because of our bad trade deals. Our trade deals are so bad. And we have made them – we have rebuilt China and yet they will go in the South China Sea and build a military fortress the likes of which perhaps the world has not seen. Amazing, actually. They do that, and they do that at will because they have no respect for our president and they have no respect for our country. Hey folks, I’m going to have to get off here now. Did you –
Noterbart är att Trump talar om att Ryssland nog kommer att ha det största inflytandet över Ukraina och att länderna runt Ukraina måste ställa upp mer ( vilka och med vad?)
Han säger dock på en direkt fråga att USA och Nato skulle försvara Estland om Ryssland anföll, men går snabbt över till att USA betalar för mycket och behöver satsa mer på egna problem. Så det förblir otydligt, och därmed mycket oroande om vad som skulle hända med Nato och med vårt närområde om Trump skulle bli president.
Nu fortsätter Trump dock att i hypotetiska opinionsmätningar förlora både mot Hillary Clinton och Bernie Sanders. Så förhoppningsvis behöver världen inte drabbas av den oberäknelige och självcentrerade president Trump. Men det kan ändå inte uteslutas.
Republikanernas väljare och numera stora delar av partiets ledande politiker fortsätter att agera förbryllande. Det finns en kandidat, John Kasich, som i mätningar slår Clinton och går jämnt med Sanders. Både Trump och ledningens (om än motvilligt) kandidat Ted Cruz förlorar mot Clinton och Sanders. Kasich anses chanslös och får ständiga uppmaningar att dra sig tillbaka för att stoppa Trump. Tja, varför ska den som har störst chans att vinna, och dessutom, om än tydligt konservativ, framstår som mer stabil och enande ge upp? Republikanerna agerar närmast som om de ville förlora presidentvalet.